At the end of last month, an IMF delegation culminated a mission in the country. Normally these types of visits are made when the thick strokes of the agreements between the fund and the countries are agreed and serve to finalize details, according to specialists. As is of rigor, at the end of these negotiations, the agency released a statement where it argued that the dialogue with the Argentine authorities was “Highly constructive and positive”.
Originally Kozack’s press conference was scheduled for last week and postponement led to speculation with the possibility that The date change was linked to a possible announcement about Argentina, The country that records the greatest debt to the agency.
However, both in Washington and Buenos Aires sources close to the authorities of the Fund and the Ministry of Economy They deny imminent ads. It is common that, when conversations are quite advanced, there is a total secrecy of the parties.
In fact, It is not yet known what kind of agreement is being negotiated: if a standby that would mean reprogramming the existing commitments but without fresh funds or an extended Fund Facity (EFF) for a longer period and with fresh funds.
This Monday, President Javier Milei said that the stocks will be lifted on January 1, 2026 but said: (If there is a disbursement of the IMF) “We can do it faster, you have to see how the program is structured. How the funds fit and that will determine the departure of the stocks ”,
Immediately, from the fund the praise to the policy applied by the official administration are repeated. Days ago, and without an apparent reason, the managing director, Kristalina Georgievapublished on social networks “We started the year 2025 with shocking debates, from the configuration of the future of the IMF in Cambridge to a productive meeting with President Milei and dynamic exchanges on how to boost growth in Davos”.
“The IMF is forced to reach an understanding with Argentina” They maintain in Fuentes close to the multilateral credit agencies and point out more than one reason. On the one hand, they argue that the Argentine government’s decision to carry out a severe tax program- more hard than the one that proposed the fund- with favorable results is a valuable background for authorities of the organism that always recommended this type of austerity policies. “It is a validation of its main recommendation ”, They explain.
Although Milei went far beyond what was required by the IMF in fiscal matters, it did not follow the traditional recommendations of the fund in the exchange and monetary field.
Questioning
But they also point out that the IMF situation must also be contemplated in the light of the Vision- critical- that Donald Trump’s administration has many of the international organizations. It should be remembered that the president of the United States began his management with his country from the Human Rights Council of the United Nations Organization.
The memorio remember that before the 2008 crisis, In the political circles of Washington, the role of the International Monetary Fund was very questioned, an agency in which the US is the main contributor.
Perhaps in this context and given Trump’s ideological proximity with Milei, Georgieva’s insistence is explained to highlight the good relationship he has with the Argentine president.
Source: Ambito
